Kansas City, MO BSL/MSN -- Year 4. Can we quit pretending it's working yet?

Logically, you would think it would work. A city is killing too many 'pit bulls' in the shelter, so they decide that if they prohibit people from breeding these dogs, it will keep us from having to kill as many of them.

So the city passes a law that makes it mandatory that all 'pit bulls' be spayed or neuter -- with the expectation that people will quit breeding the dogs, and fewer will be killed in the shelter.  If you think about, it kind of makes sense that it would work.

But it doesn't. 

 Because people didn't take into account what enforcement really means for such a law. It means that people who cannot afford to have their pets altered, or decided against having their pet altered, or don't realize it's the law to have their pet altered - end up having their pet seized from them.  Their pet becomes a part of our overcrowded shelter system -- and often, dead.

"They wouldn't really just seize someone's pet for being unaltered and kill it would they?" you ask. The answer is yes. Yes. A resounding yes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In February, 2008, a pit bull named Ox was confiscated while the home owner wasn't home because he was unaltered. The dog, licensed in the neighboring city of Lee's Summit, wasn't subject to Kansas City's mandatory spay/neuter law. Ox was being taken care of at a friend's house in Kansas City. And in spite of the dog wearing a different city's license, the dog was confiscated, and 'accidentally' killed at the shelter. The head of KMCO animal control admitted the mistake, and appologized, but it didn't save Ox's life - -a dog that was taken from a home and killed because of the MSN law.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Kansas City law mandating the spay/neuter of all 'pit bulls' was passed in August, 2006. The passing came at a time when things were crazy in the area because a Kansas City, KS woman, Jimmie Mae McConnell, had been attacked and died from a hear attack after an alleged 'pit bull' that lived in the abandoned house next door to her. Even though no one lived in the house with the dog, and the house was ruled 'uninhabitable' by city officials, the need to 'do something' about 'pit bulls' became the hysteria of the moment.

With the pressure to "do something", the city looked toward San Francisco's MSN law for pit bulls as a solution to their problems -- and while the 'expert' testimony, by Kim Staton, admitted that the early results for the San Francisco Spay/neuter program "are not looking good", the city passed the law anyway -- and for four years the law has stood on the books, and for four years, dogs like Ox, that had a home, were pulled from that home and have been killed in the shelter.

---------------------------------------------------

In the summer of 2008, KCMO animal control was called to a house because someone reported a female 'pit bull' and her litter of puppies in a home. Animal control came to the home and confiscated all of the animals. Authorities later decided that the mother of the puppies was actually a Boxer, not a 'pit bull', (Sugar, the mother, appears left) and that the mom could go home, but not the puppies.  In spite of this, the city was planning to charge the man for having an unaltered 'pit bull' and let the ticket stand. Meanwhile, the litter of 8 puppies contracted parvo at the shelter and died before they could return home. (The other pictures on this blog post are of Sugar's puppies that died at the shelter)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the best way to show the impact of the ordinance is to just put the numbers out there, and the supply a little explanation.  Here are our euthanasia numbers for dogs since 2005 in Kansas City, Mo.  The numbers reflect the total number of dogs killed in the shelter each year since 2005 -- and then, what number of those dogs were 'pit bulls' and what number were "all non-pit bulls'.

So let me walk through the numbers a bit. 2005 is the base year for this analysis -- as it is the most recent year available that is not affected at all by the ordinance. The city passed the BSL/MSN in August 2006, and it went into effect in December of 2006.

In 2006, there was a lot of confusion surrounding the ordinance, when it started, and what the requirements were.  Because of this, hundreds of dogs were surrendered to the shelter -- causing a 38% increase in 'pit bulls' euthanized while the rate for all non-pit bulls was 4%.

2007 is the first full year with the BSL/MSN. While the euthanasia rate for all non-affected breeds went down by 6%, the kill rate for 'pit bulls' went up a whopping 75% vs the base year of 2005. While voluntary spay/neuter programs were having a positive impact on euthanasia for dogs of all non-pit bull breeds, with the city ordinance, unaltered 'pit bulls' by the dozens were being rounded up by animal control...and killed at the shelter.

After an abysmal start to the ordinance, the Kansas City Star ran a story in June 2008 about the higher impounds of 'pit bulls' and thus, the higher number of animals killed at the shelter -- to which, animal control director Patrick Egberuere responded, "All I can explain to you is that we obviously impound more, and the more we get off the street, the less we'll have out there."

In other words, if we kill enough of them, there will be fewer to kill -- and that will equal success. Yikes.

In 2008, there was a tremendous drop in intake (I have no confirmed explanation the sharp decline).  While the euthanasia rate for all non-pit bulls went down a whopping 50% from the base year of 2005, 'pit bull' euthanasia rates were still higher than the base year before the ordinance that was supposed to keep us from killing so many 'pit bulls' in the shelter went into effect.

In 2009, the city privatized the shelter which led to a dramatic increase in adoptions for all breeds of dogs. So for both 'pit bulls' and non pit bulls, the numbers are finally significantly better than they were back in 2005. Shelter killings for 'pit bulls' were down 30% from the 2005 number and non-pit bulls -- down 63%. 

But why would 'pit bull' euthanasia be down only 1/2 as much as all other breeds of dogs 4 years after the ordinance was passed to specifically decrease 'pit bull' euthanasia? 

The reason can be found with a deep dive into the 2009 numbers....and in the stories of the dogs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last week, a man was out in the park playing with his dog off-leash. It was a cold, snowy day in KC, and the park was pretty empty. An animal control officer stopped and talked to the man -- giving him a ticket for his dog being off-leash. The officer then saw a 'pit bull' that was hanging out in the man's car that was parked nearby. The officer asked if the pit bull was altered -- the man said yes. The officer then asked to see the dog's spay scar, the man ablidged and showed the scar. The officer determined it was a different type of scar, and impounded the man's dog and took it to animal shelter. While it seems likely this owner will get his dog back, a kennel at the shelter had to be cleared out to make room for this dog.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A close look at the 2009 animal control impound statistics show over 200 pit bulls that were impounded because of the 'pit bull ordinance' and a full 60 more that were unaltered pit bulls that were either picked up for "other ordinance violations" or the owner agreed to surrender their dog to the animal control officer in the field with no ticket issued.  In total, 270 'pit bulls' came in because they were unaltered pit bulls -- 25% of the total number of pit bulls impounded.  

If  you decrease the number of  'pit bulls' killed by 25% (the same percentage that were impounded due to the ordinance), you would have a 50% decline in 'pit bulls' killed compared to 2005 -- which is very close to the number for all other breeds of dogs.  If we had decreased the killing of 'pit bulls' over the past 4 years at the same pace we would have from all other breeds of dogs (a reasonable assumption had we not passed a law specifically targeting them), we would have killed roughly 1800 fewer pit bulls (and this number doesn't include animals that were euthanized at the shelter to make space for the impounded dogs).

But we instead, we targeted a specific type of dog with a mandatory law.

So while low cost spay/neuter programs combined with good adoption groups in the area and more education of pet owners have had a significant impact on our overall shelter euthanasia -- the decline has been stymied among 'pit bulls' because the mandatory spay/neuter law has given animal control officers carte blanche to seize more of them from homes (dramatically increasing impounds) and causing MORE of them to die at the shelter....not less.

The law is broken. It has failed. It is currently failing - -and every day we leave it on the books more dogs are dying because of it. It is way past time we quit pretending that the law is working.

Comments

[Pibble]

These are pig-headed people who put these "laws" into place in the first place, and getting them to see their error, whether the statistics are in our favor or not, will be a long, hard road. Or I should say HAS been a long, hard road, hasn't it.

Let's face it. They don't care how many dogs die; that's not an issue for them. They don't have compassion for animals like we do. Until the regimes change to people who DO care for animals and people equally, and the laws aren't enforced by people who don't have anything better to do but harass and profile Pit Bulls and their owners, we and our pets are screwed.

[Dawn]

Brent, I have a question about your story of the guy at the park with the dog in his car. Isn't having the dog in your car like it being in your home, and he was in no way legally required to show that ACO his dog without a warrant?

[Brent]

Dawn, I'm pretty confident that the answer to you question is yes - although the fact that they can SEE the dog in the car may be enough "cause" to allow them to not need a search warrant...unlike something being in your trunk, which for sure requires one. But given that the guy was in compliance, he probably thought it was no big deal....

[EmilyS]

"The officer asked if the pit bull was altered -- the man said yes. The officer then asked to see the dog's spay scar, the man ablidged and showed the scar. The officer determined it was a different type of scar, and impounded the man's dog and took it to animal shelter. "

WTF???? when did that ACO get licensed as a vet? Surely that is grounds for SOME kind of lawsuit.

[Brent]

Emily, it's a perfect scenerio for an animal control officer under our new quota system. They get to write a citation AND impound a dog...2 notches toward their monthly goal. There is rule that any of it has to stick or be legitimate.

[Social Mange]

Dawn, the United Kingdom determined that the interior of one's car is not private but public, and seized a so-called "pit bull" from a car. The owner went bankrupt trying to get his dog back. I don't believe he ever got the dog back. My apologies, I cannot remember the man's name or the dog's name.

[Social Mange]

There's a noticeable trail to this that occurred in OnScario as well. The animal control people weren't doing their jobs. In your post above, why was a dog left living in an abandoned, uninhabitable house? In Toronto, why was the owner of dogs with previous aggressive behaviour complaints never apprehended?

Governments of all stripes (mostly down their backs) use BSL to play CYA.

[Lori]

I know without a doubt that Indianapolis Councilman Mike Speedy would consider this to be an effective law. He just wants to see the number of pit bulls drop so that there will be a smaller pit bull population to be biting/mauling. Granted, this post doesn't have any details about the total pit bull population and if Dweeby got a similar passed in Indy he wouldn't have total pit bull population numbers, but his theory would be that if you seize and kill homed (but unaltered) pit bulls then you are going to slowly decrease the pit bull population (by a combination of [theoretically] fewer births and increased deaths of pit bulls). Fewer pit bulls = Fewer mouths that might bite & maul.

He doesn't care if TOTAL bites go up as long as "pit bull" bites go down in number and as a percentage of total bites. He insists that pit bulls have a unique and more devastating attack/bite style that because of their combined strength and tenacity does more damage than the average dog.

I'm not saying he's right. I'm just sharing what I know those in favor of MSN4PB believe and why they would say that your experiences with BSL/MSN are quite possibly a success.

[Brent]

Without a doubt Lori -- if the goal is to kill a lot of pit bulls, then the law has been an overwhelming success.

BTW, I don't have bite numbers listed here -- but the bite numbers in KCMO have been remarkably steady over the past 5 years...with little-to-no varience year to year.

[amy jordan]

Why was it successful in San Francisco?
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/S-F-sterilization-law-successful-in-reducing-pit-2507585.php

[amy jordan]

Is this how the BSL/MSN laws are being enforced, or not?
If not, then isn't THAT the problem?

"People on both sides agree that spaying and neutering is good for pit bulls because it minimizes the number of unwanted pups and blunts aggression in males.

San Francisco's law allows animal control officers to issue a fix-it ticket to noncompliant dog owners, requiring that the pit bull be sterilized within two weeks. Animal Control officers also hand out information on low-cost and free surgeries.

Officers follow up with visits to the homes of owners who have not complied. A first violation can bring a citation and $500 fine; more than one citation can land an owner in jail and result in the city seizing the dog.

Usually, however, Animal Care and Control officers don't let it get to that point. If they return and have to write a citation, officers will take the dog from the owner - sometimes forcefully - spay or neuter the animal and return it, unless the pit bull is aggressive or officials believe it is being used in dog fights.
In the past 18 months, the agency has issued about 250 fix-it tickets, of which only 30 or so are outstanding. It has handed out 204 citations.
"We don't want to criminalize this - there are a lot of people that can't afford to spay or neuter their dogs," Friedman said. "The whole idea is not to take the animal away unless they pose a danger."

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/S-F-sterilization-law-successful-in-reducing-pit-2507585.php

[Brent]

Amy,

It's a good question. The answer is a bit more complicated.

#1) I think there is a lot of debate about the true effectiveness of the San Francisco ordinance. While the director who pushed for the ordinance declared it a success publicly in the article you cite, there are plenty of others there who would say the positive impact is debatable. Note these links:

http://badrap-blog.blogspot.com/2016/03/is-san-francisco-ready-to-end-its-breed.html

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2008/03/bslmsn-in-san-f.html

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2008/03/bslmsn-san-fran.html

#2) Even if we were to assume that San Francisco's law really did reduce pit bull intake due to less-rigorous enforcement -- I'd caution thinking that the positive impacts would be transferable in most situations.

In 2005, San Francisco simultaneous had the 10th lowest poverty rate in the country and the 5th highest average Household income. So they had (and still do have) a disproportionate amount of wealth and fewer problems with poverty. Also, in the early 2000s, San Francisco was a leader in animal shelter policy and by the early 2000s were the first to call themselves no-kill. A part of this was that, at the time, they had a very well developed low-cost/free spay/neuter program that helped the limited poverty-stricken population comply with the law. It's important to note that San Francisco's shelter had VERY high save rates before the MSN law as the low cost services were effective prior to the law being put in place.

-- So I guess I'd say, based on talking to many in San Francisco, that the results there are at best mixed (and not a resounding success) -- but that the damage from the law was likely mitigated there somewhat by an abundance of resources, a well-developed spay/neuter program, and a relatively small number of people living in poverty. So I'd contend that San Francisco's animal infrastructure and demographics helped them to be successful (if indeed they were) in spite of the law, not because of it.